The Epicurean Paradox is perhaps the most popular philosophical argument used by atheists to question the existence of an omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnibenevolent (all-loving) God in the presence of evil. The paradox is often attributed to the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus and is usually formulated as follows:
- If God is willing to prevent evil but unable, then He is not omnipotent.
- If He is able but unwilling, then He is malevolent.
- If He is both able and willing, then whence cometh evil?
- If He is neither able nor willing, why call Him God?
This paradox attempts to challenge the compatibility of evil’s existence with God’s traditional attributes in classical theism. It has been a central issue in discussions about the problem of evil in the philosophy of religion.
In recent years, it has become perhaps the most popular argument by atheists against the existence of God. The image below, which illustrates the Epicurean Paradox, is widely circulated on social media:
Below, we offer a quick overview of this argument’s logical fallacies and misconceptions, aiming to clarify why the paradox fails to account for the complexity of theological and philosophical perspectives.
1. False Dilemma (False Dichotomy) Fallacy
The paradox creates a false dichotomy by presenting only two options at each decision point, ignoring more nuanced theological explanations. For example, it assumes that if God exists, He must either prevent evil completely or be limited in power, knowledge, or goodness, thereby missing more sophisticated theological perspectives.
2. Human Perspective and Assumption of Divine Attributes
The Epicurean Paradox assumes full comprehension of what an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God would do, not allowing for the possibility that human ideas might not fully fathom divine reasoning and attributes. It relies on human comprehension of power, knowledge, and goodness while ignoring the theological argument that God’s ways and reasons may be beyond human understanding (Isaiah 55:8-9). Our limited perspective cannot fully grasp the Divine reasoning behind each and everything that takes place in our universe.
3. Over-Simplification of Free Will
The Epicurean Paradox oversimplifies free will by suggesting that it could exist in a universe without any possibility of evil, which philosophers and theologians alike argue is contradictory. True free will requires the possibility of choosing evil, making goodness meaningful. I don’t genuinely have free will if I can never choose anything wrong.
4. Necessity of Evil
The Epicurean Paradox dismisses the idea that evil could exist for a greater good or as part of a divine plan. For instance, the “soul-making” theodicy argues that experiencing and overcoming evil is essential for spiritual growth. In addition, it is likely that without the ability to err, we would be unable to experience some of life’s most important lessons, such as forgiveness and grace, or develop crucial emotions, such as humility, compassion, and empathy.
5. Misinterpretation of Omniscience
The Epicurean Paradox misinterprets God’s omniscience, falling into the same false dilemma fallacy that Calvinism encounters, where His foreknowledge is mistakenly seen as causation. However, other theological approaches, such as Molinism, resolve this supposed contradiction between God’s knowledge and His sovereignty. Furthermore, tests and challenges are not for God’s benefit but for human experience, encompassing free will, problem-solving, and the development of virtues like faith and courage.
6. Equivocation Fallacy
The Epicurean Paradox equivocates to the meaning of “prevent.” Preventing evil could mean obliterating it entirely or permitting it for a higher good. It does not consider that preventing all evil might undermine free will or result in greater harm.
7. Ignoring Counterarguments and Theodicies
The Epicurean Paradox overlooks widely recognized theodicies, such as the free will defense and the soul-making theodicy, which provide coherent explanations for the compatibility between God and the existence of evil.
In simple words
Question: Is God Able to Stop Evil? Does He Want to?:
Answer: God may allow some evil to occur in the short term to achieve a greater ultimate good, for reasons that may be fully known only to Him. However, the Bible also promises that in the future, God “will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” (Revelation 21:4).
Question: Does God Know About All Evil?:
Answer: Yes. God’s omniscience means He knows about all evil, but knowledge does not imply causation, nor does it require immediate action if it serves a greater purpose.
Question: Why Is There Evil?:
Answer: Free will necessitates the possibility of choosing evil. Overcoming evil contributes to character development and the greater good, aligning with the soul-making theodicy.
Question: Could God Have Created a Universe Without Evil?:
Answer: Creating a universe with true free will but without the possibility of evil is a logical contradiction because genuine free will inherently includes the potential to choose evil. True free will entails the potential for evil. Eliminating all evil would undermine the meaningfulness of free will and moral growth.
Conclusion
The Epicurean Paradox oversimplifies complex theological arguments and relies on logical fallacies such as false dilemmas and equivocation. It fails to consider the nuanced interplay between divine attributes and the existence of evil. By recognizing the limitations of human understanding and the necessity of free will, we can see that the coexistence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God with evil is not inherently contradictory. Instead, it invites a deeper exploration of divine purposes and the complexities of moral freedom.
